The multiplicity of built form manifestations: Situating the … · 2020. 6. 21. · [email protected] The multiplicity of built form manifestations: Situating the domestic form

81.1

Proceedings . 4th International Space Syntax Symposium London 2003

81KeywordsTangible andi n t a n g i b l ec o m p o n e n t s ,facade complexity,syntactic spatialp r i n c i p l e s ,c o n f i g u r a t i o n a lp r o p e r t i e s ,s e m i o l o g i c a lperceptions, dualityof syntax andsemiotics.

[email protected]

The multiplicity of built form manifestations:Situating the domestic form within interwoven syntactic and

semiotic domains

Shatha Malhis

University of Petra, Jordan

AbstractTransformations in Amman’s economic and political status have triggered a numberof fundamental changes in the socio-cultural and urban forms of the city. Nourishedby the oil-boom of the 1970s, Amman, the capital of Jordan, has been subjected toaccelerated processes of change at every scale, creating a novel physical and socio-cultural environment which bears little affinity with its older counterpart (Fethi etal, 1996: 173). Post-oil-boom domestic villas have displayed formal stylistic featuresof extreme eclecticity, ostentatiousness and extravagance, not readily comparablewith those of any previous era (Figure 1).

Amidst these representational stylistic varieties of villa form, the architecturalresearch in this paper is primarily directed towards the investigation of stylisticdifferences as indicators of socio-architectural preferences within the contemporarydynamic. Although understanding built form is an integral part of the objective ofany built-environment paradigm, a methodical understanding of how its architectureis influenced by different socio-cultural aspects has been notably lacking. Mostresearchers have treated the different tangible and intangible components of form inisolation; their studies focused on one aspect of the multiplicity of built formmanifestations, spatial, stylistic or semiological, ignoring others or leaving them torelated yet independent research, without trying to situate the domestic form withininterwoven domains. The analytical and empirical methodology used in this paper,for investigating the eclectic architecture of modern Amman-Jordan goes some waytowards rectifying these deficiencies. It was concluded that it is necessary to

Figure 1: Amman’s stylisticvariety

The multiplicity of built form manifestations

81.2

reconceptualise the different manifestations of architectural form from a semiologicalpoint of view, and to decode their components within a perceptual and analyticalperspective. Domestic forms are accordingly analysed at three levels: the stylisticrules that operated to produce their facade complexity, the syntactic spatial principlesthat structured the configurational properties of the layouts, and the semiologicalperceptions which defined the way in which the architectural variety is grasped bythe owners.

1.Past research

In general as well as specific architectural literature, the subject of domestic

architecture has been extensively examined. The home has been described by many

authors as the most multi-dimensional territorial centre (Saegert, 1985). Despite

some pioneering ideas which tried to bridge the gap between architecture and society

(Bentman et al., 1970), the majority of the examined approaches remained unable to

investigate the multi-faceted nature of the built form of the home, because they

based their approach either on formal building criteria, which included purely stylistic

or dimensional aspects, or on functional criteria, which accounted for the socio-

cultural dimension of architecture, superficially borrowing from one criteria to use

in another context (Jencks, 1978; Steadman, 1983; Krier, 1991; Mitchell, 1994).

Alternative approaches to the study of domestic form have sought an

understanding of the psychological and social-symbolism of the architecture of the

house (Goffman, 1978; Cooper, 1974; Appleyard, 1979: 4-20). Despite psychologists’

and other social theorists’ enthusiasm for integrating architecture and psychology

(Kennedy, 1975; Rapoport, 1981: 6-35; Warren&Fethi, 1982) the way in which the

relationships between the socio-cultural matrix and the spatial and the formal

dimensions of the house appeared in their work does not go beyond the assumption

that the house is merely ‘an expression of the self’.

Environmental and semiological paradigms provided alternative approaches

to the study of forms and tried to offer a theoretical framework relating physical and

psychological factors operating on the aesthetic experience of forms (Canter, 1993,

p659-698; Nasar, 1989 Groat, 1983: 31,58-60). Although environmental and semiotic

explanations are believed by many to be one of the tools to link behaviour and

architecture (Leach, 1997: xv), what seems to have happened is a failure to establish

a satisfactory link between social relations and architecture (Baudrillard, 1997: 217).

The literature showed that while formal visual procedures have concentrated

on the particularities of form at the expense of content, behavioural, psychological

and semiological studies seem to have exhausted a converse approach, producing

an extensive body of socio-cultural, abstracted knowledge, which does not explain

the particularity of form.

81.3


2. The theoretical perspective

The most suitable methods to the analysis of the domestic forms of this research

seem to be those which allow villas to be examined, described, and analysed within

their socio-cultural context and which stress the insights of forms over the primacy

of their basic and physical structures. The actual interest of this research is not in the

traditional scale drawings of plans and facades, but in how the spatial layout of

certain classes of plan illustrate the social concepts involved, and how the visual

perception of the different forms of facades and their components might activate

the universe of the signified in viewers’ minds.

Glassie’s approach provides a comprehensive conceptual framework for the

investigation of the different facets of change, and attempts to understand the hidden

logic of architectural elements, by focusing on the semiotics of the syntax of forms

(Glassie, 1975). However, and despite its theoretical strength, it does not develop

very far, from a methodological perspective. Although Hillier et al.’s syntactic

approach provides a powerful tool for the analysis of socio-cultural expression as

embodied in the spatial patterns of domestic forms, where spatial layout is described

structurally and comprehended objectively within a semiological framework (Hillier,

et al., 1987; Hillier, 1996; Hanson, 1998), the representational and stylistic parameters

of architecture are largely ignored. The literature has shown that there is no single

comprehensive tool that successfully allows investigation of the meanings and

compositions of facades, or integrates the semiotics and syntax of facades within

one tool, similar to that of space syntax. While some authors try to depict the

internalised cognitive semiotic structures of forms in terms of associations (Osgood

et al.’s, 1957), others provide methodological and analytical tools for the perceptual

comprehension of facades (Kiemle in Krampen, 1979; Chan, 1995). Very few attempt

to join the universe of signifiers of the visual images of forms in perceivers’ minds

with the universe of signifies and the meanings and feelings the images might arouse.

While Kiemle’s conceptual layering of a facade’s formation allows categorisation

of a variety of facades with respect to their perceived organisational rules, together

with portrayal of their levels of complexity, Chan’s method of the investigation of

the features of styles allows recognition of the variety of features and their impact

on the perceived composition of a facade in a fashion very similar to that of Kiemle’s.

These two proposals allow the ‘syntax’ of facades to be read objectively while

Osgood’s and Krampen’s approaches allow reconstruction of the semiotic structure

of these facades as built in people’s minds.

Hence, by wedding Glassie’s conceptual framework with Hillier et al.’s theory

for the study of spatial analysis, together with the ideas of Kiemle and Chan for

comprehending the syntax of facades, and those of Osgood and Krampen to depict


81.4

the semiotics of facades, an integrated framework can be proposed. The following

sections discuss the layers developed by this research and then demonstrate how

interrelations between the multiplicity of their formation could occur.

2.1 The stylistic layer

In the light of the literature review, the aim here is to establish an appropriate model

for the description and classification of Amman’s forms. By responding to the

strengths of each of the ideas mentioned, it became possible to develop a compound

theoretical and methodological logic that can read the variety of Amman’s facades

which: a) responds to the architectural and perceptual aspects of material artefacts

and relates to the characteristic context of facades b) accounts for the way in which

perception of forms affects recognition of the stylistic criteria; c) develops a mixed

matrix method that can describe the different levels of similarity and difference

between facades and accounts for the importance of elements, features and masses

whether perceived separately or collectively.

Two main dimensions of vocabulary are used; the ‘formal basis’, or the

‘proportion expressed in the main facade and its massing’, and the ‘stylistic feature’,

or ‘stylistic element expressed on the main facade’. The main difference between

the two is that while the ‘formal basis’ registers the information found in the very

basic form of facades when stripped of their additional components, and is analytically

used to marshal the variety of villas into a manageable number of similar groups,

the ‘stylistic features’ capitalise on difference, and the phrase is used to allow the

degree of variety to be expressed. The degree and quality of information in ‘formal

basis’ and ‘stylistic features’ are of completely different orders, and hence can

occur independently of each other. By combining the different scenarios of possible

alternatives of ‘formal basis’ with ‘stylistic features’, a method of recording stylistic

diversity is created. The data base for this task consisted of over two hundred

randomly selected villas. These represent 10% of the villas of the modern

neighbourhoods of Amman.

As in any building classification system, analysis began by recording all the

exact details of each villa’s facade, then each facade went through different levels

(degrees) of abstraction to register its features at each stage of this facade making. A

pilot analysis was performed at different levels of generality for the assessment of

the architectural facades by the following two approaches; the first investigated

villas at the level of complexity and gradually reduced the information gained in a

reductive process until their very basic initial form was revealed, and the other inverted

81.5


Layer 1 Layer 2

Layer 4 Layer 5Layer 3

OTHERSSCREENSCOLUMNS

TYPENo GARAGEBALCONYROOFDOORWINDOW

No TYPE OPENING'S FRAME STONE FINISHE

Layer 6

the processes and investigated how the elementary form evolved to produce the

final complex facade. Finally this research developed its method along the following

layers of abstraction / cumulative complexity (Figure 2):

Layer 1: the architectural composition of the facade is outlined at this first layer to

clarify the basic structure which generated the form.

Layer 2: this level enhances the articulations on the basic masses of the facade, so

that the major volumetric alterations within or on the basic masses and resulting in

an addition to or subtraction from the basic form are presented.

Layer 3: this stage reinforces the perception of variety across buildings; it began by

adding basic piercing(s) of the structure of the facade and extended to include all

basic attributes, such as false screens and attached garages.

Layer 4: this stage focuses on appearance in more detail; it selects and organises the

geometric description of piercing(s), showing the contextual relationship of piercing

with each other and with surrounding walls.

Layer 5: at this stage, the constructive and decorative details of stone finish, columns,

cornices and roofing are added to provide the final image.

Layer 6: along with these five stages, a sixth stage was developed to give an account

of the entire range of stylistic features appearing in each villa. In order to support

analysis, these dependent forms were removed from their real facades and grouped

into a category labelled ‘stylistic features’.

Figure 2: Layers of abstraction / cumulative complexity


81.6

Based on the frontal aspects of buildings, “the proportion expressed on the

front façade” and “massing”, it was possible to classify 202 villas of the 230 stylistic

villas into eleven different types (Figure 3). Twenty eight villas were puzzling and

difficult to place, therefore, type twelve was generated to combine the villas which

allow of no formal principle or other alternative to explain their composition.

2.2 The perceptual layer

Despite the analysis in the previous stylistic layer, which identified the stylistic

typologies of west Amman, the findings of these analyses remain incomplete, because

their initial concern has always been the syntax of facade. Although investigations

were conducted within a framework which draws heavily on the perceptual

recognition of forms, these investigations did not delve into the second stage of

perception, which involves the meanings of forms. Within this context, the question

arising is: are there certain shared feelings and generated symbolic vocabularies that

can enrich the knowledge gained about investigated facades and thus suggest a new

way of looking at forms?

To determine the extent to which particular types of stylistic expression may

be consistently perceived as similar to or different from each other, and to find which

of these recognised design strategies are preferred over others, it was necessary to

focus on how people recognise the variety of Amman. A "Piling task" was designed

in which interviewees (29 villa owners) were presented with colour photographs of

twenty-seven stylistically diverse villas, covering the different stylistic types identified

in the stylistic layer. Interviewees were instructed to attend to the nature of these

forms, and to sort villas into as many piles as necessary, so that the villas in any pile

were more similar to one another than to villas in any other pile. The whole twenty-

seven photographs were presented at one time, to help interviewees anchor their

judgements (Naser, 1989).

0

10

20

30

40

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11

Identified types

Num

ber

of v

illas

Number of Villas

Figure 3: Distribution of the identified types

81.7


20

25

212621

27

A

15

3

54

624

14

B

10 8

916

7

1311

17

C

18

19

12

23

22

D

Figure 4: Diagrams representing sets - A,B,C, and D - in the twenty-sevenphotographs piled by owner respondent groups


81.8

By reviewing the way in which each of the twenty-nine owners interviewed

piled the twenty-seven photographs of the diverse villas, it became possible to

formulate a clear picture of people’s recognition and clustering of forms, and the

extent to which the logic which developed these clusterings is different from or

similar to that used in architectural circles. Interviewees clustered the villas into

four sets (Figure 4). While piling, interviewees did not seem to pile the photographs

in a random manner; rather - and as the limited number of produced sets suggests -

pictures were clustered in consistent, and most importantly, widely agreed-upon

sets. This suggests that while sorting, respondents were referring to clear and well-

identified schemata in their minds.

When the respondents were asked about what were their criteria for making

these piles? and; is there an order of preference within these piles? It became clear

especially after using semantic- scale investigations that it is possible to put respondent

groups of west Amman into two diverse categories: one which found set A the most

desirable, because, as they argue, all its villas are distinguished by their grandness,

expansiveness, and status; and one which found this same set the least preferred

and even the most distasteful because its villas manifest a noveau-rich approach to

the search for socially appreciated status. By referring to the clustering and preference

judgement of the four sets combined, it becomes clear that while some sets occupied

different positions in people’s preferences, and were symbolically loaded with diverse

social connotations, other sets have similar preference profiles and occupied the

mid-scale of groups’ judgements. Nevertheless, and despite the variety within the

norm of the findings, what remains significantly consistent, is respondents’ piling,

regardless of the attached symbolic meaning of the villas and heedless of their

background. This confirms that inhabitants’ recognition of stylistic forms is almost

identical. Inhabitants do not recognise the variety of forms of Amman as being as

wide.

2.3 The spatial layer

In the light of the identified stylistic and perceptual types of Amman, the main

objective of this section is to determine whether the observed external visual variety

between villas is paralleled by a similar internal spatial difference, or whether such

differences are merely stylistic elevational variations, essentially enclosing one

underlying spatial pattern. Because the aim of this research is to comprehend the

architecture of Amman within the context of the socio-cultural dynamics of the

society, it is necessary to go beyond the facades of the villas into their internal spaces.

It was equally important to exceed the limited time-frame of the appearance of

diversity and to step back into earlier eras to gain general knowledge of the

development of the syntactic properties.

81.9


By relating to space syntax, the discussion in the following paragraphs is

structured analytically to address the following objectives: a) to explore the existing

organisational structure of the spatial arrangement of the older as well as of the

modern villas, to uncover possible common underlying spatial themes developed

within each of these two chronological periods. b) to examine the extent to which

the older villas of Amman are similar to or different from their modern counterparts.

c) to investigate the extent to which the stylistic understanding of the stylistic and/or

perceptual types mentioned in the previous sections could be extended to suggest

parallel spatio-morphological differences. d) to evaluate the spatial affinity between

villas of one stylistic type and with the sample as a whole, to determine whether a

correlation exists between the stylistic expression of villa facades and plans or whether

these occur independently of each other.

2.3.1 Older villas:

Prior to gathering the architectural data for this research, a decision was made to

include a sample of older villas to give the whole study a credible historical dimension.

These villas were built between 1920s and the late 1960s (Rifai et al., 1987; Amman

Municipality archives). As Figure 5 shows, the earlier examples of the 1920s through

to the 1950s are generally of one storey. The layout is usually structured around a

relatively large central hall which performs a dual role: as a functional space, and as

a transition space. Most of the rooms are not restricted to a specific function, but

instead function as a multi-functional space, used by all the members interchangeably

to fulfil their daily requirements.

Figure 5: Older villa layouts


81.10

In the villas of the 1950s through to the 1960s, one can notice a clear shift in

the way in which the plan is structured. The villas are now characterised by the

inclusion of more than one floor for the same family; the upper floor accommodates

the private zones while the ground floor accommodates the public reception halls

and service sectors. Spaces were capable of clear functional categorisation and rooms

are identified by clear functional use. Circulation areas, became clear; the villas

include new forms of open plan bounded spaces, with reception halls of several

functional convexly identified spaces. The living rooms are of varied shapes and

sizes and appear to be spatially structured in a manner that differs from that of the

older main central hall.

In the light of the principles of the syntactic theory, the findings shown in

Tables 1 and 2 suggest the existence of two different genotypes: one with the entrance

lobby (EL), and the second with the living room (TL) as the most integrated space,

however, with variations which constitute phenotypes under the umbrella of these

two main genotypes.

Code year Order

SOF44 1944 TS < EL < TL = BR < K1 < C

SOA46 1946 TS < K1 < C < BR

SOM50 1950 EL < C < TS = D < TL = K1 < BR < M1

SOT55 1955 TL < EL < TS < K1 < M1 < BR < D = C < KB < B

SOA57 1957 TL < LS < K1 < EL < D < C < M1 < KB < TS < MD < BR < B

SOH59 1959 EL < D = TL < C < TS < K1 < BR < M1 < KB

SOL63 1963 TL < LS < TS < C < K1 < D < MD < M1 < BR < KB

SOB63 1963 EL < E < TL < TS < D < C < M1 < K1 < BR < MD < P

Owner Code Built up Year Convex BoundaryMean Min Max BDF

Area(m2)

Mehiar SOA46 82 1946 7 7 1.178 0.39 1.57 0.69

Arif O5 219 1923 10 10 0.964 0.55 1.36 0.84

Murtada O4 255 1925 10 10 1.236 0.55 2 0.71

Faraj O2 299 1928 11 9 1.165 0.45 1.73 0.7

kherfan SOF44 158 1944 11 10 0.891 0.3 1.06 0.73

Sharif O9 253 1928 11 11 0.836 0.23 1.13 0.62

Qasous O6 244 1929 12 12 0.862 0.45 1.21 0.82

Sabbag O8 175 1935 12 9 1.127 0.51 1.6 0.78

Fraih O7 252 1935 14 13 0.954 0.43 1.78 0.65

Al-Faiez SOM50 244 1950 15 10 1.088 0.51 1.53 0.79

Taji O3 342 1927 16 13 0.92 0.34 1.25 0.72

Ganam O1 261 1927 19 18 1.218 0.57 2.13 0.69

Gargour SOL63 263 1963 19 16 1.54 0.96 2.29 0.86

Majali SOH59 367 1959 22 17 1.236 0.62 1.84 0.79

Tukan SOB63 487 1963 25 19 1.244 0.63 2.05 0.75

Tabbaa' SOT55 859 1955 32 22 1.341 0.84 2.12 0.83

Malhas SOA57 542 1957 34 24 1.407 0.74 2.25 0.78

Table 1: The general characteristics of the floor plan of the older villasusing the whole living complex of each villa with the carrier included

Table 2: The order of integration of the functions of the older villas ofthe forties through the sixties, with the carrier included

Key:

EL - Entrance lobby , E - Entrance TS - Average sum of accommodated saloons SS - Private separated saloon

D - Dining room TL - Living room LS - Living second

K1 - Main kitchen KB - Side entrance through kitchen balcony M1 - Master bedroom 1

BR - Bedroom 1 MD - Maid bedroom GB - Guest bedroom

P - Play/multi-purpose room B - Boiler room C - Carrier

81.11


The questions now are, what are the impacts of these identified spatial types

on the developments of the modern villas? Have the spatial patterns of the modern

era sprung from these types, or have they, in contrast, shifted in a manner similar to

that which occurred in the older era? To address the questions raised.

2.3.2 Modern villas:

The villas examined in the following sections are these identified in the stylistic

layer section, and believed to be representative of the eclectic variety of Amman.

These modern villas are sited on private land plots that varied in size between 400 -

1000m2 during the 1970s through to the late 1980s, to as high as 1500m2 s in the

1990s. Although some villas consist of one or four storeys, most consist of two or

three.

Figure 6: Illustrations of a group of visual , spatial and functional differences within themodern sample


81.12

A look at a representative sample of the layouts of these villas in Figure 6

suggests that although they appear to be similar in the living functions they contain,

a group of visual and organisational differences makes it extremely difficult to

describe the visual patterns of Amman’s villas. It is here that the syntactic analysis

can be used to explore the morphological structure of villas’ spatial arrangements,

and to uncover their underlying spatial configuration. Within this context, the general

spatial properties of these modern villas have been examined. The findings suggest

the existence of two genotypes. A look at the genotype of the entrance lobby (EL)

Style

Code Type Order

Genotype 15 1B EL < C < K1 < TL < D < BR < TS < P < B < LS < M1 < MD

8 2 EL < C < TS < TL < K1 < LS < KB < D < BR < B < M1 < MD

14 4 EL < C < TL < D < B < TS < K < GB < M1 < P < BR < M1

31 9 EL < C < TS < TL < MD < K1 < KB < M1 < D < BR

35 11 EL < C < BR < TS < K1 < TL < M1 < D < KB

48 2 EL < C < TL < KB < TS < K1 < D < M1 < BR < B < P

3 1A EL < D < C < TL < TS < B < K1 < LS < BR < M < P

12 3 EL < K1 < LS < BR < C < SS < D < B < P < TS < M1

29 9 EL < K1 < TL < C < M1 < D < TS < BR < P < B < GB

20 5 EL < LS < TL < C < KB < K < BR < GB < TS < M1 < D < MD < P < B

16 4 EL < TL < C < TS < K1 < D < BR < GB < M1 < B

21 6 EL < TL < C < TS < B < K1 < D < LS < M1 < GB < BR < P < B

24 7 EL < TL < D < K1 < C < TS < LS < KB < B < GB < BR < M1 < MD

37 11 EL < TL < C < D < KB < K1 < TS < BR < M1 < B

Genotype226 8 TL < D < EL < K1 < TS < C < LS < GB < KB < BR < M1 < B

34 10 TL < D < P < C < TS < EL < LS < BR < MD < B < K1 < KB < M1 < GB

2 1A TL < EL < D < C < LS < TS < SS < P < K1 < B < BR < M1 < MD

6 1B TL < EL < K1 < TS < C < D < KB < BR < B < M1 < MD

10 2 TL < EL < K1 < LS < C < TS < B < D < M1 < BR

22 6 TL < EL < K1 < C < KB < TS < D < B < M1 < BR

15 4 TL < K1 < EL < SS < KB < TS < C < D < GB < MD < B < M1 < BR

23 7 TL < K1 < C < EL < LS < KB < D < TS < B < P < BR < M < MD

30 9 TL < K1 < EL < KB < C < BR < TS < D < B < MD < M1

7 1B TL < LS < K1 < EL < D < TS < C < M1 < KB < BR < B < MD

40 12B TL < LS < EL < KB < D < C < K1 < TS < BR < P < MD < M1 < GB

44 SothA TL < LS < EL < C < K1 < D < TS < BR < B < MD < M1

Other Genotypes18 5 K1 < C < EL < KB < TS < P < MD < LS < BR < D < B < M1

36 11 K1 < TL < EL < BR < C < D < TS < KB < M1 < MD

19 5 LS < K1 < BR < C < EL < M1 < D < B < TS

4 1B LS < TL < EL < C < D < TS < SS < B < BR < K1 < MD < M1

11 3 D < LS < TL < C < E < TS < K1 < M1 < MD < BR < B

28 8 D < TL < EL < C < K1 < TS < BR < B < M1 < MD

9 2 C < EL < D < TL < B < P < TS < K1 < MD < BR < KB < GB < M1

39 12A C < EL < D < LS < TS < K1 < TL < BR < P < M1 < MD

33 10 P < C < D < EL < TS < SS < B < LS < K1 < MD < M1 < BR

* The villas which belonged to the same genotype categorizing whether the carrier was included or excluded

Key:

EL - Entrance lobby TS - Average sum of accommodated saloons SS - Private separated saloon

D - Dining room TL - Living room LS - Living second

K1 - Main kitchen KB - Side entrance through kitchen balcony M1 - Master bedroom 1

BR - Bedroom 1 MD - Maid bedroom GB - Guest bedroom

P - Play/multi-purpose room B - Boiler room C - Carrier

Table 3: Data on the possible spatial types of villas, including the carrier

81.13


the most integrated, shown in Table 3 and at the genotype of living room (TL) being

the most integrated with the carrier included or excluded reveals that the string of

the genotypes identified in the previous paragraphs is not long. The values of the

‘base difference factor’ BDF for a group of socially significant was accordingly

calculated. The values generated showed that villas have relatively high BDF values,

or in other words, weak differentiation. These findings suggest that although Amman’s

villas belong to two clearly identified genotypes, these genotypes are relatively weak

and include within their structure a group of phenotypes.

It should be acknowledged here that although the spatial analysis has clustered

modern villas into two groups of genotype, with a third nongenotype, in a grouping

which appears to differ from the stylistic or the semiological identification of these

villas, the extent to which these spatial findings are related from the evolutionary

point of view, is not yet clear. In addition, the nature of the relationship between

these three spatial types, the twelve stylistic types identified earlier in the stylistic

layer, or the four perceptual clustering of the perceptual layer, is not yet clarified.

2.3.3 Spatial chronology:

The spatial results of the older and modern samples are now examined to answer the

following questions: what are the actual moments of change in the architectural

history of Amman? What are the points at which the evolutionary process was initiated

which leads to the diversity of modern Amman?

The distribution of functions of the earlier villas through the years 1920 –

1960, shows that it was only after the years of the late 1950s that new sets of functions

began to appear. A look at the facades of the villas of the same period showed that

they began to divert from their older stylistic trends at the same time as their plan

layouts changed. The genotypical identification of the two spatial patterns of the

1950s and which contradict the identified genotype of the 1920s through to the

1940s, works in synchrony with these developments. These parallel findings suggest

that the spatial changes at the plan level from the seem to have been consciously

implanted as clear new spatial types. Consequently one can refer to the late 1950s

as the period in which a major turning point in the history of the villa architecture

seems to have taken place.

Along these lines, the findings of the later modern period, which followed in

the 1970s through to the 1990s, emphasised the existence of two apparent spatial

genotypes. It also witnessed the emergence of new spatial organisations which

remained individualised and limited in number thus remaining within the nongenotype

group. Neither of the two dominant genotypes of the eclectic city was brought about


81.14

by the impacts of the oil-boom. What modern layouts proposed is a more subtle

articulation of the relationship between the architectural spaces present in their

counterparts of the 1950s, together with the introduction of sets of new spaces.

Detailed investigations showed that despite the consistency in definition of

the genotypes within the modern era, consequently resulting in a wider group of

phenotypes. While the older villas (1950s-1960s) belonged to two genotypes with

minor phenotypical variations, the modern villas belonged in fact to the same two

dominant genotypes, however, with many phenotypical variations. The finding that

the genotypes of modern Amman are the same as those of the 1950s, despite the

geometrical differences and the expanded space variety, is a new way of revealing

reality through space configuration. What the modern villas express is not so much

a new way of living but, in contrast, a new way of expressing self, most clearly seen

if the two genotypes of the 1950s, expressed in one stylistic expression, were

compared with the same genotypes of the 1970s through to the 1990s, however

many the phenotypes and however unlimited the stylistic diversity.

2.4 Spatio-stylistic synchrony

The following paragraphs attempt to focus on the nature of genotypical and stylistic

affinities which exist between villas. Only the modern period is discussed, because

it is the era which witnessed spatio-stylistic inconsistencies.

It is believed that consistency in spatial results of the modern period in relation

to one facade type and across the whole sample, is fertile ground for spatio-stylistic

investigations. This is especially true, given that the genotypical identification of

Amman’s villas into two genotypes and one nongenotype (Table 3), while the findings

of the stylistic and perceptual layers indicated that the villas facades can be grouped

into 12 stylistic types and/or 4 perceptual clusterings. Nevertheless, since the analysis

indicated that these genotypes are characterised by shortness of the length of their

string and by variability in resultant phenotypes, this research needed to sharpen its

tools to allow investigation of the ways in which the spatio-stylistic relationships

develop.

Based on Hillier and Hanson’s criteria setting the rules for the identification

of genotypes, this research developed its own tool, which allows production of a

numerical value that could measure the degree of spatial affinity across the villas

when compared in pairs (each villa of the sample is compared with each of the other

villas in the same sample). While Hillier and Hanson consider the order of integration

of the functions of the villas investigated, and search visually for the existence of

such order - regardless of its length - across the different villas, this research

81.15


developed a tool based on Spearman’s rank order and used in AL-Bahar’s analysis

(AL-Bahar, 1990: 355). It can produce a correlation value which varies between -1

and 1 and which indicates the degree of negative or positive weak, or strong

correlations that the orders of the different pairs of villas and the integration of their

functions might have. In this tool, comparisons occur only across two examined

pairs and thus it measures thoroughly the degree to which the integration order of

the full living complex of the first villa is similar, or in other words correlated with,

the integration order of the other villa. It searches both for the genotypical and for

the topological forms of affinities which exist between investigated pairs. The

difference in these comparisons from those of the space syntax theory is that here

villas are investigated in pairs, to search for the different degrees of genotypical or

topological similarities. Most importantly, the results are tabulated in a comparable

matrix form in tables (Table 4) or figures.

Integration values of villas compared

Integration 0.64 0.72 0.77 0.82 0.93 0.99 1.05 1.11 1.11 1.43 1.68 1.77 2.11

Villa No. 1 : C < EL < BR < K < TL < M1 < KB < B = P < TS < MD < SS < GB

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8.5 8.5 10 11 12 13

Integration 0.66 0.72 0.82 0.91 0.99 1.02 1.10 1.12 1.25 1.33 1.45 1.66 2.23

Villa No. 2: EL < BR < K1 < TL < M1 < C < B < P < MD < SS < GB < TS < KB

Rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Function Villa No.1 Villa No.2

Rank * Integration** Rank Integration

C 1.0 0 .064 6.0 1.020

EL 2.0 0.720 1.0 0.660

BR 3.0 0.770 2.0 0.720

K1 4.0 0.820 3.0 0.820

TL 5.0 0.930 4.0 0.910

M1 6.0 0.990 5.0 0.990

KB 7.0 1.050 13.0 2.230

B 8.5 1.110 7.0 1.100

P 8.5 1.110 8.0 1.120

TS 10.0 1.430 12.0 1.660

MD 11.0 1.680 9.00 1.250

SS 12.0 1.770 10.0 1.330

GB 13.0 2.110 11.0 1.450

Table 4: Comparing the rank order and the integration values of the full living complexof two pairs of villas

* ‘Rank’: Correlation value

**‘Integ.’: Correlation value

As soon as this technique was developed, each pair of villas was investigated

and four values for each pair of villas were produced: ‘Integ.’ and ‘Rank’ correlation

values which measure the degree of correlation between any two pairs of the 52

villas with the carrier included, and ‘Integ.’ and ‘Rank’ correlation values which

measures the case with the carrier excluded (Figure 7). This form of ‘one to one’

genotype comparison is conducted because, it is necessary to investigate in more

detail how compared spatial layouts are stylistically expressed. This moves the scope

of analysis from purely syntactic spatial analysis to spatio-stylistic investigations at


81.16

one stroke. In this regard, the subject of comparisons moves away from the general

clustering of spatial patterns into that of the specific degree of correlation between

the stylistic expression and the plan layout of focused pairs. The results are

schematically shown Figure 7.

WITHOUT CARRIERT y p e Villa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

1 1

2 0.7 1

3 0.6 0.8 1

Type 1 4 0.6 0.8 0.6 1

5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.1 16 0.2 0.1 -1 0.3 0.3 1

7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 1

8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.7 1

Type 2 9 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.2 1

10 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.8 0.6 0.4 1

11 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.5 -0 -0 0.4 0.1 -0 0.4 1

Type 3 12 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 -0 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.5 1

13 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0 0.4 0.7 -0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1

14 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 1Type 4 15 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 1

16 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.6 -0 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 1

17 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.9 -0 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 1

18 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.6 -0 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.6 1

Type 5 19 0.7 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.5 0.5 -0 -0 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 -0 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1

20 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 -0 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.5 1

21 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.6 -0 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 -0 0.8 0.4 0 0.6 1

Type 6 22 0.3 0.1 -0 -0 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.8 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 0.6 0.8 -0 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 1

23 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 1

Type 7 24 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.9 0 0.8 1

25 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.9 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.8 1

26 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 -0 0.5 0.8 0.7 1Type 8 27 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0 0.6 0 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 -0 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.6 1

28 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.2 0 0.4 -0 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 1

29 0.2 -0 0 -0 0.2 0.7 0.4 -0 0.5 0.4 0.1 0 -0 -0 0.2 0.8 0.1 -0 0.7 0.1 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.3 -0 0.5 0.1 1

Type 9 30 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.3 1

31 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 -0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 -0 0.6 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.6 -0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.1 -0 0.3 1

32 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.7 -0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 -0 0.8 0.7 0 0.3 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.8 0.5 1

Type 1 0 33 -0 0.2 -0 0.3 -0 -1 -0 -0 0.7 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 0.4 -0 -0 -0 -0 -0 -1 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.1 0.3 -0 -0 0.2 -0 1

34 0.2 0.2 0 0.2 0 -0 0.1 0.1 0.4 -0 0.3 0.1 0.5 -0 0 0.1 0.4 0.1 -0 -0 -0 -1 0.1 0.3 0 0.2 -0 0.3 0 -0 -0 -0 0.4 1

35 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.5 0 0.9 0.1 0.3 -1 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 -0 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0 0.2 -0 -0 -0 0.3 0.7 0.1 -1 -0 136 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.6 -0 -0 0.4 1

Type 11 37 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 -0 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0 0.7 0.6 0.8 -0 0 0.1 0.4 1

38 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.4 0.5 -0 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.6 -1 0 0.7 0.6 0.8 1

39 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 -0 0.6 0.9 -0 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.6 -0 0.7 0.4 0.7 -0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.7 1

40 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4 0.3 0 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.8 1

Type 1 2 41 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.7 -1 -0 0.3 0.6 1 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

42 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 -0 0.3 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.3 -0 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 1

43 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 -0 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.6 -0 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.7 1 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0 0.7 0.5 0.8 -0 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 1

44 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.6 0 0.1 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 1

45 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.6 -0 0 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 1

46 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 -0 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.5 -0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.3 -0 0.2 -0 0.4 -0 0.3 -0 0.1 0.7 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 147 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 -0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 -0 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.6 0 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.4 1

O t h e r s 48 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 -0 0.6 0.9 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.7 -1 -0 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 1

49 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.1 -0 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.2 0.6 -0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 1

50 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 -0 -0 0 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.5 -0 -0 0 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 -0 -0 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.6 0 0.3 0.7 0.5 1

51 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.6 0.8 -0 -0 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.5 1

52 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.7 -0 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 -0 0.4 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.3 -0 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.6 1

WITH CARRIER

T y p e Villa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

1 1

2 0.8 1

3 0.4 0.8 1Type 1 4 0.7 0.9 0.6 1

5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 1

6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 1

7 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.8 1

8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 1

Type 2 9 0.3 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 1

10 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.5 1

11 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.4 1

Type 3 12 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.2 1

13 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 0.8 1

14 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.7 1Type 4 15 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 1

16 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 1

17 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.2 1

18 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 1

Type 5 19 0.6 0.1 0.4 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 -0 0.2 0.4 0.5 -0 -0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1

20 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.5 1

21 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.5 0 0.7 1

Type 6 22 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.4 1 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 0 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.8 1

23 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.8 1Type 7 24 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.5 -0 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 1

25 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 1

26 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.1 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 1

Type 8 27 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.5 0 -0 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.6 1

28 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 1

29 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 1

Type 9 30 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 1

31 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 -0 0.4 -0 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0 0.6 0.2 1

32 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.7 0 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.4 1

Type 1 0 33 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.9 0.3 -0 0.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.4 -1 -0 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.6 -0 0.3 0.5 0.3 1

34 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 -0 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.8 1

35 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.4 -0 0.6 0.7 0.4 0.3 0.7 -0 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 -0 -0 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 136 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.4 1

Type 11 37 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.4 1

38 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.9 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.8 0 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 1

39 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 -0 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.9 1 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.8 1

40 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 1

Type 1 2 41 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.6 1 0.7 0.8 0.8 1

42 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.2 0.7 -0 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 1

43 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.7 -0 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 1

44 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.8 145 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.8 1 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 1

46 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.3 0 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.1 -0 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.3 -0 0.6 0.1 0.7 -0 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.9 1

47 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.2 1

O t h e r s 48 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.9 -0 0.5 -0 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 1

49 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 -0 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.8 0.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.7 1

50 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.5 0 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.4 -0 0.1 -0 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0 0.1 0.5 0.4 1

51 0.9 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.5 1

52 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 -0 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 1

Figure 7. The various degrees of spatial correlation which occur across 52 villas of the modern samplewhen compared in pairs.

81.17


The distribution of the relatively high correlation values which occurred

between the pairs of compared villas - highlighted - for each of the shown sets

matrices in Figure 7 shows clearly that similarities between villas could occur between

villa pairs, irrespective of their identified stylistic types. The results indicate that a

large percentage of villas act in the spatial arena in a manner irrespective of their

stylistic type. When the ‘stylistic/semiological’ clusterings of Amman’s facades

identified in the perceptual layer were examined in a search for any ‘spatio-stylistic/

semiologically based’ correlation it was again difficult to identify any sort of

synchrony which could suggest that the genotypical understanding of west Amman’s

villas could extend to a parallel spatio-stylistic/semiological understanding. Based

on this spatial clarity, analyses have confirmed that it is difficult to refer to a broad

genotypical-stylistic framework that could describe its architecture.

3. Conclusions

The findings of this paper show that the villas of Amman could be spatially

comprehended within the context of traditional/modern, rather than within the context

of older/modern samples. The comparative examinations showed that there are

striking differences in spatial forms between the two chronological periods of

Amman’s pre-1950s and post-1950s villas. In addition, the review of change over

time, suggests that the evolutionary process at the spatial level which ended by

producing the stylistically diverse architecture of Amman, has in fact been in progress

since the 1950s. The fact that some villas of modern Amman have shown lesser

degrees of genotypcial affinity and belonged to non-genotypes in terms of their

spatial organisation could have some bearing on the pattern of the social evolutionary

change in Amman’s society, always marked by minor clusters of socially or culturally

diverse groups.

Irrespective of the general emergence of some spatial and functional trends

at certain periods, and despite some of the gradual and functional changes in the

plan layouts, there is a clear degree of spatial stability, both through the first half of

the twentieth century and through its second half. Moreover, relating these clear

spatial trends to the stylistic classification of Amman’s forms, the picture all together

changes. While the traditional period of the 1920s through to the 1950s is

distinguished by its spatial and formal stability, where one traditional spatial genotype

is expressed stylistically by one traditional elevational expression, the period of the

1950s through to the 1970s is distinguished by two emerging genotypes, stylistically

expressed by one formal international style. This norm sharply changed in the late

1970s through to the 1990s, when the relative stability of the genotypical arena was

overshadowed both by stylistic elevational diversity and by spatial phenotypical


81.18

inconsistency. Spatio-stylistic analysis reflected that, in the same way as details of

facade intensify the differences across the same type of facade, and create out of the

similarly composed massing completely diversified facades, investigating the details

of the genotypes magnifies dissimilarities among plan layouts and reveals many

phenotypes within the modern sample. With all these possible inconsistencies in the

foreground, and even when the combinations of layout-facade are restricted to the

12 stylistic categories, and to the two genotypes and the one non-genotype identified,

analysis shows that there is a pronounced breakdown in the relationship between

the spatial and the stylistic expression of Amman’s residential forms. It is almost

impossible to infer a villa’s facade expression from its spatial pattern, no matter

what analytical criteria are used, and whether the criteria respond to the identified

stylistic types or to their semiological clusterings or not. It appears that it is along

these juxtaposed variations of stylistic expression and spatial patterns that the

evolutionary architectural forms of Amman have developed, interpreting these

stylistic-spatial variations in conjunction with the way in which the three evolutionary

identified genotypes of Amman have developed: from the simple main lobby hall as

the most integrated during the 1920s, to those of the 1950s through to the 1990s,

where the living room is the most integrated, followed by the entrance hall, or

alternatively where the entrance hall is the most integrated and lavishly decorated.

One can argue that this wide variety, stylistically expressed through facades,

syntactically through varied versions of phenotypes, or genotypically through

emphasising the lavish entrance hall, might have some relevance to the symbolic

intention of the owners of these villas. With the introduction of the category of

foreigners as visitors, and with the new demographic make-up of the rapidly changing

society, it seems that differentiations between groups was no longer based on social

knowledge about the individual. The spatial and the formal image of the domestic

space seems to become the strongest means through which the evaluation of the

individual is conducted.

This paper shows that while each layer of form manifestation could generate

its own wealth of findings, these findings remain local and partial in their explanations,

because globality of interpretation could only be achieved when findings on the

layers of the syntax of facade, semiotics of facade, syntax of space, and semiotics of

space, are examined against each other and juxtaposed in a manner which allows the

socio-cultural impact of the society to be captured.

The findings of this paper makes a contribution to the man-environment

paradigm by methodologically interweaving the different aspects of the concept of

the multiplicity of built form, and by focusing operationally on how the structures

81.19


of syntax and semiotics could be constructed in relation to one another. Without

findings about how the different layers of form manifestations actively engage with

each other, the credibility of such interpretations, this research has shown, is

questionable.

References

Al – Bahar, H.,1990, The Evolution of Kuwait's Domestic Architecture: An Empirical and a Theoretical

Study, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London, The Bartlett School of Architecture and Planning,

University College of London

Appleyard, D., 1979, “Home”, Architectural Association Quarterly, 11(3), pp. 4-20

Baudrillard, J., 1997, “The beaubourg-effect: Implosion and deterrence”, in N. Leach (ed.), Rethinking

Architecture: A Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge

Bentmann, R. and Muller, M., 1970, The Villa as Hegemonic Architecture, T. Spence and D. Craven

(trans.), New Jersey, Humanities Press

Canter, D., 1993, “Personal aspects of the architectural experience”, in B. Farmer and H. Louw(eds.),

Companion to Contemporary Architectural Thought, London, Routledge

Chan, C-S., 1995, “A cognitive theory of style”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 22,

pp. 461-474

Cooper, C., 1974, “The house as symbol of self”, Design and Environment, 3(3), pp. 30-37

Fethi, I. and Mahadin, K., 1996, “Villa architecture in Amman: The current spectrum of styles”, in J.

Hannoyer and S. Shami (eds.), Amman the City and its Society, Beyrouth, Cermoc

Glassie, H., 1973, “Structure and function”, Semiotica, July, pp. 313-351

Goffman, E., 1978, “The presentation of self to others”, in J. Manis and B. Meltzer (eds.), Symbolic

Interaction: A Reader in Social Psychology, Boston, Allyn and Bacon

Groat, L., 1983, “Measuring the fit of new to old”, Architecture: The American Institute of Architects

Journal (72), pp. 58-61

Hanson, J., 1998, Decoding Homes and Houses, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Hillier, B., 1996, Space is the Machine: a Configurational Theory of Architecture, Cambridge, Cambridge

University Press

Hillier, B., Hanson, J. and Graham, H., 1987, “Ideas are in things: an application of the space syntax

method to discovering house genotypes”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design

14, pp. 363-385

Jencks, C., 1978, Daydream Houses of Los Angeles, New York, Rizzoli International Publications

Kennedy, R., 1975, The House and the Art of its Design, New York, Robert E. Kreiger Publishing Co

Krampen, M., 1979, “A possible analogy between (psycho-) linguistic and architectural measurement -

the type - token ratio (TTR)", in D. Canter and T. Lee (eds.), Psychology and the Built

Environment, London, Architectural Press

Leach, N., 1997, Rethinking Architecture: a Reader in Cultural Theory, London, Routledge

MitcheIl, W., 1994, The Logic of Architecture: Design, Computation and Cognition, Cambridge, MIT

Press

Nasar, J. L., 1989, “Symbolic meanings of house styles”, Environment and Behaviour, 21(3, May), pp.

235-257

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H., 1957, The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana, University

of Illinois

Rapoport, A., 1981, “Identity and environment”, in J. S. Duncan (ed.), Housing and Identity: a Cross-

Cultural Perspective, London, Croomhelm

Rifai, T. and Kanann, R., 1987, The Earlier Houses of Amman, Amman, University of Jordan


81.20

Saegert, S., 1985, “The role of housing in the experience of dwelling”, in I. Altman and C. Werner (eds.),

Home Environments: Human Behaviour and Environment, Volume 8, New York, Plenum Press

Steadman, P., 1983, Architectural Morphology: An Introduction to the Geometry of Building Plans, London,

Pion

Warren, J. and Fethi, I., 1982, Traditional Houses in Baghdad, Sussex, Flexiprint Worthing

Documents

The multiplicity of built form manifestations: Situating the … · 2020. 6. 21. · [email protected] The multiplicity of built form manifestations: Situating the domestic form